RMS Calls On Linux Developers To Replace BitKeeper

JakusMinimus writes "The developer of BitKeeper has issued fighting words to RMS and he has responded on the LKML,. I remember the flap about this way back when Linus decided on BitKeeper, now it seems many of the non-free concerns were warranted."

Comments

sigh

[larry bagina]

Linux may be GPL, but it's not GNU -- leading to absurdities like "GNU/Linux" and the bitkeeper jack-off sessions.

While it's true that linux depends on GNU, it's also true that GNU depends on Linux. Linux is "just" a kernel, but it's the most important part (besides the compiler). It's obviously burning up RMS that GNU depends on something which isn't GNU.

It also has to be frustrating when your baby, TURD (oops, HURD), is a wallflower to the darling Linux.

I think those people that hate bitkeeper, or make sure you GNUter Linux would be more productive if they worked on HURD instead. The acceptance of Darwin shows that people are interested in microkernels and alternative to alternative OSs.